Should banning an ability ban megas with that ability?

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#1
This is a bit of an argument between PS developers right now, so I'm going to punt this to PR.

I feel like this is an obvious Yes. If you ban Shadow Tag, then Gengarite should automatically be banned with it. If you ban Swift Swim, Swampertite should automatically be banned with it.

The main exception is Balanced Hackmons, where Pure Power is banned but Mawilite/Medichamite isn't. I consider this an exception, some programmers consider it the rule, we're at an impasse, hi PR.
 
#3
Absolutely yes. I'm not familiar with balanced hackmons, but I do know for sure it is not near the importance of our standard tiers that it should be anything but the exception to the rule. It also just seems rather intuitive to ban pokemon that are forced to use a banned ability, as they only have that one to choose from. Like, what reason do we have to not just ban Gengarite if in 100% of cases it will have a banned ability?
 

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
#4
A very firm yes. Assume Swift Swim is banned. An item that gives Swift Swim should also be banned because the end result is a pokemon having a banned ability.
So, hypothetically, if Simple is banned then should Simple Beam be banned as well? A move that gives Simple should also be banned because the end result is a Pokemon having a banned ability?
 

Josh

=P
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Mafia Champion
#5
So, hypothetically, if Simple is banned then should Simple Beam be banned as well? A move that gives Simple should also be banned because the end result is a Pokemon having a banned ability?
This example is more subjective but in singles at least no, no need to ban it. You can only target your opponent, not yourself, and if you wish for your opponent to have the ability and they sweep you with it that's nobody's fault but your own. It's also in a similar boat as stuff like acupressure, because while it can bypass the evasion clause in the same way simple beam bypasses the simple ban, it's still not that big of a deal. It's not the greatest example but there's no true precedent to cite afaik.
 
#6
I disagree, but I also disagree with the transitivity of bans, which is another PR discussion that happened a while ago that never really reached a conclusion. I believe these topics are inherently connected.

When a tier bans an ability, they are not banning any specific Pokemon. A Pokemon is banned because it has a specific combination of traits that make it overwhelming and difficult to handle. When an ability, move, or general strategy (see: Baton Pass) is banned, we are banning a single trait that makes a wide variety of Pokemon overwhelming within the context of their tier. Going with your example, Swift Swim could be deemed uncompetitive in UU, thus making Mega Swampert unusable, but this doesn't mean Swift Swim is broken in the context of RU, where their different set of viable Pokemon could potentially handle Rain teams better.

However, in a theoretical world where this transitivity was ignored and Swift Swim was usable in UU but not RU, an entire Pokemon would have been banned without having been formally judged for its own unique set of traits. This is unfair because Mega Swampert was never formally suspect tested and was simply banned by association. Continuing this theoretical example, if Swampert were to ever drop from UU to RU, Mega Swampert would be able to fall with it, and RU would be able to judge whether or not Mega Swampert is a healthy or disruptive addition to their metagame. This is how tier shifts have always worked for banning specific traits of Pokemon, such as Quagsire falling after Baton Pass nerfs and Kingdra falling after Swim Swim nerf in BW OU, and it's ridiculous to assume every ability will have the same impact on tiers below them.

If we're moving forward with the backwards system of preemptively banning abilities in lower tiers, I'd agree with banning megas with banned abilities. However, it otherwise makes more sense to keep them in the same tier as their base form so they can follow usage trends in the same fashion.

I understand this touches on issues that might detract from Zarel's main point, so maybe it's a good idea to revive the old thread on this issue.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#7
I disagree, but I also disagree with the transitivity of bans, which is another PR discussion that happened a while ago that never really reached a conclusion. I believe these topics are inherently connected.
It did reach a conclusion. Bans are no longer transitive. For instance, NU has Baton Pass Speed Clause, but PU does not.

Not that this matters. Megas are tiered separately, so if a higher tier bans a mega, a lower tier won't be able to use it anyway.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#8
Can we just agree not to have uniform tiering policy between "real" tiers like OU and "fake" tiers like BH?

Like, why should this even be a discussion.

If BH believes they should allow Pure Power on MegaCham (when they use Medichamite on Medicham EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD USE MEGA MEDICHAM ALREADY FROM TURN 1 WITH SOME OTHER ITEM AND ABILITY... ffs who are these idiots), but not on something with much higher atk, that actually seems like a totally reasonable thing to do.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#9
The only reason why you'd want to ban Pure Power everywhere except MegaCham is if you have a format where abilities are given to mons that don't usually get them, which I feel like should be the exception rather than the rule.

Anyway, this thread isn't about uniform tiering policy necessarily, it's more about defaults. I'm proposing that banning megas with an ability (i.e. how it works in OU) should be the default, not how it works in BH.
 
#10
Not that this matters. Megas are tiered separately, so if a higher tier bans a mega, a lower tier won't be able to use it anyway.
Megas will never be 100% separated from their base forms in terms of usage/placement. Mega Garchomp is OU because it can't fall past its base form, despite it being a significantly inferior Pokemon. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't need to have this discussion because any theoretical ability bans would result in the megas dropping in usage like with every other trait-oriented ban. However, this is not the case. The fact still remains that these megas, which we are treating as separate Pokemon like you said, were never individually suspected. They should remain in their functionally useless state tied to their base form until they drop alongside them because that is representative of the tier they should be in. By placing these Pokemon in their respective tier's banlists, you're preventing them from being subjected to the regular process of our tiering system for the sole reason of "it feels better."

I also don't agree with Mega Stones being "items that give (ability)" because that's essentially the opposite of what we agreed is the purpose of a base form holding a Mega Stone, right? If a base form is holding a Mega Stone, it's considered a different Pokemon altogether in regards to usage statistics. By running Swampert holding Swampertite, you are running Mega Swampert with Swift Swim as far as the teambuilder is concerned.
 

Martin

Like the hole in a doughnut
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor
Moderator
#11
I mean, if an ability is banned and a Pokémon can only have that ability then surely that means that said Pokémon is banned from a tier like Cacturne is in gen 4 due to Sand Veil. If we were to ban Pixilate right now Mega Altaria and Mega Gardevoir would go to ubers due to the fact that they are banned from use in the OU metagame and even with the whole thing about non-transistive clauses they never recieved low enough usage to drop to UU/BL before they were prohibited from usage in OU, and similarly if we banned No Guard from OU then Honedge and Doublade would be automatically banned to ubers because they could have potentially moved to OU at some point had their abilities not been banned. The other thing is that if, say, Forecast were banned from RU and Castform moved to UU by usage then it would never be able to drop below BL2 again because it could have potentially recieved enough usage in RU to retain its tier had Forecast not been banned, and similarly if Forecast were also banned in OU it would be capped to UU as its highest possible tier.

I think in this respect any Pokémon with a non-variable ability should be considered to be the same thing as their ability in the respect that you can't use one without the other a-la gen 4 Cacturne and Frosslass, and with mega stones very blatantly falling under this they should be banned alongside the ability which they give to their user. In order to retain purely usage-based tiering I feel that it is necessary to count these cases as one entity in order to account for potential future eventualities had they have not been put into effect before they could happen (regardless of how unlikely) to prevent any unnecessary potential for skewed data.
 
#12
My question is: what does actually change between having "ban ability = ban mon [be it mega or reg] with only that ability" and not having it? Is it just dev stuff? Or does that bring anything else on the table?

My answer is an obvious yes, though, because I can't see any difference aside BH which shouldn't be related to OU and other tiers concerning Pokémon with real in-game datas.
 
Last edited:

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#13
Megas will never be 100% separated from their base forms in terms of usage/placement. Mega Garchomp is OU because it can't fall past its base form, despite it being a significantly inferior Pokemon. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't need to have this discussion because any theoretical ability bans would result in the megas dropping in usage like with every other trait-oriented ban. However, this is not the case. The fact still remains that these megas, which we are treating as separate Pokemon like you said, were never individually suspected. They should remain in their functionally useless state tied to their base form until they drop alongside them because that is representative of the tier they should be in. By placing these Pokemon in their respective tier's banlists, you're preventing them from being subjected to the regular process of our tiering system for the sole reason of "it feels better."

I also don't agree with Mega Stones being "items that give (ability)" because that's essentially the opposite of what we agreed is the purpose of a base form holding a Mega Stone, right? If a base form is holding a Mega Stone, it's considered a different Pokemon altogether in regards to usage statistics. By running Swampert holding Swampertite, you are running Mega Swampert with Swift Swim as far as the teambuilder is concerned.
I honestly can't tell what you're saying or if you're even disagreeing with me.

Your second paragraph seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying, so I don't know why you're saying you don't agree.

And your first paragraph doesn't seem relevant at all? Placing a Pokémon in a tier's banlist does not prevent it from dropping if the relevant ability-ban is lifted. You can take it out of the tier's banlist. That is a thing that can happen. PS is not HAL 9000, it will not say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#14
My question is: what does actually change between having "ban ability = ban mon [be it mega or reg] with only that ability" and not having it? Is it just dev stuff? Or does that bring anything else on the table?

My answer is an obvious yes, though, because I can't see any difference aside BH which shouldn't be related to OU and other tiers concerning Pokémon with real in-game datas.
It is, for the most point, a programming thing, but it's also relevant to "default" policy. Like, we should have one policy that represents our "usual" stance on these things. We can have exceptions, but those exceptions should have a good reason. So we don't have to have this conversation every time it comes up, we can just have it once, and then only discuss exceptions when there's a need for an exception.

It's also relevant to defaults. Like, we have custom rule tournaments now, it's possible for people running a tournament to customize what they ban. If they ban Shadow Tag, does that automatically ban Mega Gengar, or do they have to ban Mega Gengar separately?
 
#15
It is, for the most point, a programming thing, but it's also relevant to "default" policy. Like, we should have one policy that represents our "usual" stance on these things. We can have exceptions, but those exceptions should have a good reason. So we don't have to have this conversation every time it comes up, we can just have it once, and then only discuss exceptions when there's a need for an exception.

It's also relevant to defaults. Like, we have custom rule tournaments now, it's possible for people running a tournament to customize what they ban. If they ban Shadow Tag, does that automatically ban Mega Gengar, or do they have to ban Mega Gengar separately?
In the example you brought it'd be better they get banned separately but I believe it's a rare exception for which the player could just unban Shadow Tag for then banning Gengarite/Gengar-Mega if he wishes to do so ofc
 

cant say

grumpy and stubborn
is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis an official Team Rateris a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Server Moderator
Battle Spot Leader
#16
Josh kindly pointed out to me that my last post was worded poorly so I'm having another go at it:
So, hypothetically, if Simple is banned then should Simple Beam be banned as well? A move that gives Simple should also be banned because the end result is a Pokemon having a banned ability?
I don't like this example, you're not giving your Pokemon the ability as Simple Beam is not self-targeting so it doesn't apply here. Mega Evolution gives the user the banned ability, which is what we're discussing. Josh's post that you replied to could be changed to be relevant to your example:
A very firm yes. Assume Simple is banned. An item / move that gives Simple to the user should also be banned because the end result is your pokemon having a banned ability.
Of course this only applies to Singles though. If Simple was deemed broken in Doubles and banned there, I would assume that Simple Beam would also be banned as it provides a way for a Pokemon on your team to gain that ability. However, nothing relevant in DOU gets either Simple or Simple Beam so it's not worth worrying about.
 

EV

I don't do Santa hats
is a Battle Server Administratoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
PS Policy Head
#19
(when they use Medichamite on Medicham EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD USE MEGA MEDICHAM ALREADY FROM TURN 1 WITH SOME OTHER ITEM AND ABILITY... ffs who are these idiots)
There are legitimate strategies involving mega / primal evolution with the native mega stone / orb, Download being the main one. You don't have to call them idiots ...
 

marilli

two, but one.
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#20
So, hypothetically, if Simple is banned then should Simple Beam be banned as well? A move that gives Simple should also be banned because the end result is a Pokemon having a banned ability?
Josh kindly pointed out to me that my last post was worded poorly so I'm having another go at it:

I don't like this example, you're not giving your Pokemon the ability as Simple Beam is not self-targeting so it doesn't apply here. Mega Evolution gives the user the banned ability, which is what we're discussing. Josh's post that you replied to could be changed to be relevant to your example:

Of course this only applies to Singles though. If Simple was deemed broken in Doubles and banned there, I would assume that Simple Beam would also be banned as it provides a way for a Pokemon on your team to gain that ability. However, nothing relevant in DOU gets either Simple or Simple Beam so it's not worth worrying about.
I kinda disagree with how it kinda got glossed over that if you were to be able to gain a banned ability through an effect of a move, it should also "obviously" be banned.

Isn't it kind of obvious that this is a totally unnecessary? Imagine a tier where swift swim + rain dance is banned. Why would a move with effect "change your ability to swift swim" be banned? It'd be an outclassed version of Agility. Imagine a move that reads "give the user Shadow Tag as its ability instead." It is functionally quite similar to Block, a very situational move, that removes your ability but has the small upside of denying double switches on revengers. There would be no reason to ban it other than "but we banned [insert ability] so by technicality we should always ban this too."

In fact I think most ability bans would fall under this category other than something uncompetitive like moody.

I know people kind of stopped posting here because it's a technicality thing for programmers and I know nothing about programming, but there's a good reason moves =/= abilities and items.